What I always thought, and still do, about the Iran deal is that folks are willing to blindly accept the notion that a country might give away every single shred of information and knowledge as to what it has in it's arsenal. That goes for what is in stock at the moment and what could still be under development presently. If I were Iran (N Korea as well), I would take the deal, take the money, play all nice, and open up certain 'known' areas to inspectors any time of day. Behind the scenes it would be a different matter. On a side note, he US has had stockpiles of chemical weapons long after they were considered 'unacceptable' for use in warfare. Personally, I think Obama meant well, but was so much of an idealist, that I think he was willing to accept compliance on faith, pieces of paper, and with the assurances of inspectors (going only where they are guided to). At the time, sure, I thought talking was better than fighting, so called deals better than no deal, but realistically, the part of me that thinks on matters of war and terrorism from the perspective of another, thought much differently as to how a deal might really go down in Iran.
You are assuming that the inspection regime is ineffective, but I'm not clear on what grounds you make this assumption. Inspectors are entitled to look anywhere in the entire country (including secure, military facilities). If Iran refused access to inspectors then a majority vote of the 8 signatories to the agreement could reimpose the original sanctions. Since the agreement Iran has never refused access.
Well, they WERE doing that (there is actually an inspector on the ground in Iran every day of the year). Once this happens, they aren't going to be anymore. Again, how in any way does losing the ability to inspect Iranian sites lead to a HIGHER chance of a nuke not being developed?? We just gave up that up because.......there is no decent reason to be offered. It's just plain idiotic. One of two things happens here: the first is that Iran moves forward with a nuclear program. The other is that the European powers are able to convince Iran to stay on the right path despite our unilateral removal from the deal, and in yet another instance, the United States is frozen out of the entire process. The idea that the United States is going to punish the UK, France or Germany for continuing to abide by the deal and doing business with Iran was explicitly threatened by Trump today, and is possibly the most absurd part about this. Why are we purposefully pissing off our closest (UK), oldest (France) and most economically powerful (Germany) allies for no discernible reason??
I'm starting to think that maybe the FBI should conduct these sorts of investigations more often. If they're uncovering crimes by powerful people and corrupt folks are getting scared, maybe more public figures and companies should be subject to this level of scrutiny.
I'm sure there would be unpleasant side effects and maybe it wouldn't be the best idea if you factored in those side effects, but it would definitely root out a lot of corruption if it became common.
I'm starting to think that maybe the FBI should conduct these sorts of investigations more often. If they're uncovering crimes by powerful people and corrupt folks are getting scared, maybe more public figures and companies should be subject to this level of scrutiny.
I'm sure there would be unpleasant side effects and maybe it wouldn't be the best idea if you factored in those side effects, but it would definitely root out a lot of corruption if it became common.
You're suggesting that the FBI work outside the political process. That would kind of make them the ultimate authority. I'm not sure we would be a democracy anymore if that happened.
That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree but the constitution would have to be majorly changed to make that a reality. There would have to be a transparent process to make sure that every person in the FBI was totally unbiased from the lowest agent all the way to the top. How in the Hell would that be possible?
The most likely answer to WHY all of this is popping up is fairly simple: Trump and the people in Trump's orbit are uniquely corrupt. They've been operating like a mafia family in New York for decades. It's not a coincidence that the famous professor who has predicted every Presidential election for decades (including Trump's win) also predicted that Trump would not serve out his term. He did so simply based on his reading of the fact that Trump had far, far too many conflicts of interest and shady business dealings to possibly hide in the spotlight of the Presidency. Why this man was stupid enough to want this job is beyond me. No one would have ever know about ANY of this if he hadn't run.
I'm starting to think that maybe the FBI should conduct these sorts of investigations more often. If they're uncovering crimes by powerful people and corrupt folks are getting scared, maybe more public figures and companies should be subject to this level of scrutiny.
I'm sure there would be unpleasant side effects and maybe it wouldn't be the best idea if you factored in those side effects, but it would definitely root out a lot of corruption if it became common.
You're suggesting that the FBI work outside the political process. That would kind of make them the ultimate authority. I'm not sure we would be a democracy anymore if that happened.
That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree but the constitution would have to be majorly changed to make that a reality. There would have to be a transparent process to make sure that every person in the FBI was totally unbiased from the lowest agent all the way to the top. How in the Hell would that be possible?
Edit: Maybe SCOTUS could oversee the FBI instead of the executive branch but then should Supreme Court justices be elected instead if appointed? You've got me thinking if nothing else...
Looks like Blankenship is going down in flames in West Virginia. Can't wait to hear how Morrissey hates puppies or something though...
Manchin is 75% on his way to being a Republican anyway. The only benefit he provides to Democrats at all is a number in the caucus when it comes to taking leadership. He is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate by a wide margin. He somehow manages to keep winning. This is why the Democrats, despite almost certainly taking the House in November, have very little chance of winning the Senate. The will have to successfully defend West Virginia, North Dakota, and Missouri to even have a shot, and then pick up Nevada or Arizona as well. That is like playing all your NFL games for a whole year on the road.
Manchin is more than 75% Republican. He's voted for all kinds of Trump's agenda. He's the worst. I hope Paula Jean Swearin.. damn she lost the Primary already. heh.
I hope Manchin loses. Then West Virginia will have 6 years of some doubtless terrible Republican but at least they'll maybe get a chance at "clean" Democrat next election.
The most likely answer to WHY all of this is popping up is fairly simple: Trump and the people in Trump's orbit are uniquely corrupt. They've been operating like a mafia family in New York for decades. It's not a coincidence that the famous professor who has predicted every Presidential election for decades (including Trump's win) also predicted that Trump would not serve out his term. He did so simply based on his reading of the fact that Trump had far, far too many conflicts of interest and shady business dealings to possibly hide in the spotlight of the Presidency. Why this man was stupid enough to want this job is beyond me. No one would have ever know about ANY of this if he hadn't run.
If Trump wants to serve out his term he will. Not even impeachment guarantees he resigns. Unless he's totally convicted of a major felony, which seems doubtful to me, his ego will require him to not only serve out his term but to also seek re-election, which may be a gotterdamerung for the Republican Party. I'm sure you'd like that in the short run but in the long run that might very well spell disaster for this country. In a 35-35-30 split country if one party takes complete control it could be an epic disaster! How in the Hell can this be avoided when both sides claim total moral authority and completely disregard the other? For every Russian Collusion theory on the left there's a Pizzagate theory on the right. Neither side is completely right and neither side is completely wrong. We need each other, if for nothing else but for assuring a middle ground.
Goddamn @jjstraka34 and @smeagolheart there is a middle ground but nobody seems able to see it anymore. Trump is a symptom of this disease, not the disease itself. I won't vote for Trump next time unless the Dems fuck up yet again with their candidate. I'm not interested in hearing what a worthless human being I am for being conservative and won't vote for a candidate who tells me I need to feel guilty for things I personally had nothing to do with. A Democrat with a positive message and a plan? That I might be able to get on board with...
Edit: I'm probably not a good cross-section of the average conservative, I'll admit. I voted for Granholm for governer here in Michigan both times (because the Republicans she ran against were assholes imho) and voted for John Dingell for US Congress in all but the last few elections (I stopped supporting him because of Obamacare and refuse to support his wife because she's running solely on his name recognition).
Extension - that's what I kind of liked about Bernie Sanders. He actually exuded positive energy. I disagree with his views but I would have pissed away my vote on the Libertarian if he would have run against Trump. I really don't like 'The Donald' much if you can believe it. I just viscerally despise Hillary...
I'll vote for pretty much anybody as long as they support campaign finance reform. Unless they're, like, literally a baby killer or something. Nothing is more important to me than removing the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions from our legislatures.
I'll vote for pretty much anybody as long as they support campaign finance reform. Unless they're, like, literally a baby killer or something. Nothing is more important to me than removing the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions from our legislatures.
That's not in the pervue of the President. If Congress supported it by 2/3 majority, no President could stop it. The people need to step up to make that a reality. I'm all aboard on that one btw!
I'll vote for pretty much anybody as long as they support campaign finance reform. Unless they're, like, literally a baby killer or something. Nothing is more important to me than removing the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions from our legislatures.
How about free airtime for candidates that can get some quota of signatures of support? I'd be willing to pay some reasonable amount of tax for that to become a reality. It could be the candidates choice to spend that money on radio or TV at their discretion. Not sure what tax would be 'reasonable' but 0.25 - 0.5%% of incomes > $50k would perhaps be acceptable (not sure if that would cover it though). That would be $125 - $250 / year for a $50k income level.
Edit: Some of the sting could be taken out by making it a 'before tax' deduction.
Goddamn @jjstraka34 and @smeagolheart there is a middle ground but nobody seems able to see it anymore. Trump is a symptom of this disease, not the disease itself. I won't vote for Trump next time unless the Dems fuck up yet again with their candidate. I'm not interested in hearing what a worthless human being I am for being conservative and won't vote for a candidate who tells me I need to feel guilty for things I personally had nothing to do with. A Democrat with a positive message and a plan? That I might be able to get on board with...
I agree that Trump is only in the White House as a result of the corrupt system we have.
Money in politics is the biggest problem.
Lobbyists, corporate "speech" which allows unlimited donations, it's all the problem. Your concerns doesn't mean anything when the politicians are only responsive to corporate interests. They don't care about you they want money.
On the Dem side, we have Justice Democrats which I hope gains traction. Paula Swearingin went down tonight against Joe Freakin' Manchin. But Beto O'Rouke might pull it off in Texas. JD are democrats that don't take in corporate PAC and super PAC money. Identity politics aren't the focus, but things like Medicare for All are. They are supposed to represent "just us".
Republicans need something similar - a movement to move beyond the corruption of money in politics. Y'alls politicians at this point are hopelessly corrupt and in the bag to corporate masters. Their biggest concerns are tax cuts for the rich and cutting obamacare to give rich people more money. That's all the Republican majority has been trying to do - aside from identity politics stuff like attack immigrants. Republicans had something - the Freedom Caucus - that was sold as something that would be responsive to we the people but they are in fact now a just a really really corrupt arm of the Koch brothers out to cut taxes on businesses, prevent anything that might affect corporate profits and they aren't even pretending to be anything but that.
-------- Wolf Pac is a non-partisan movement to "restore balance and integrity to our elections. We demand a government that is accountable to the People. Join the fight for Free & Fair Elections."
Without a constitutional amendment, it isn't even worth arguing about. With the Gorsuch appointment, Citizens United is etched in stone for another generation. The conservatives on the Supreme Court have guaranteed money will pollute politics without a change to the constitution, which is going to be practically impossible in this day and age.
Edit: Maybe SCOTUS could oversee the FBI instead of the executive branch but then should Supreme Court justices be elected instead if appointed? You've got me thinking if nothing else...
We do *not* want Supreme Court Justices to be elected--that would actually wind up being worse than what we have now.
He will make Ted's reelection campaign riskier and less certain but, unfortunately, this won't be Beto's year. Ted cannot afford to make any mistakes, though, which means that the election is Ted's to lose, not Beto's to win; the amount of money he has raised isn't important. Beto will take Dallas, Travis, Harris, and Bexar counties (Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, respectively) as well as the Valley, but that won't be enough to out-vote the rest of the State.
I am glad to see that others want deep-pocketed money out of politics. I have been advocating for the abolition of *all* lobbying of politicians for almost a decade now, in addition to making it illegal for ex-politicians to become "consultants" to various corporations, private equity firms, etc. Too many of those interests use their new consultants to garner more political contacts whom they can squeeze to skew things in their favor.
I define "lobbying" as "any corporate entity which is trying to influence politicians by donating large amounts of money to those politicians" but I also include "shopping", the act of pre-drafting legislation then looking around until you can find a politician willing to introduce it for consideration. Suppose an energy bill is being discussed. Do you want Big Oil (ExxonMobil, BP, etc) to effectively buy the votes of politicians to ensure that things go their way or do you want politicians to vote based on the best interests of their constituents?
Why should your Representative listen to you, an individual citizen who might have donated $100 or less to their campaign, when they can listen to Bob the Corporate Lobbyist who just handed the campaign a $10,000 check? Yes, it has always been the case that money influences politics but we are now in the time when essentially-unlimited dark money can *buy* politicians at wholesale prices.
The old-fashioned "call or e-mail your Member of Congress" isn't really "lobbying" (technically it is, but not in the sense I am using the term) because it doesn't contain a monetary bribe. Besides, do you think Members of Congress actually listen to phone calls or read e-mail messages from constituents? *pfft* Of course they don't--that would be the staff's job.
Ah, OK. I'm all for limiting the heck out of donations to reduce politicians' incentives to listen to lobbyists. Actively stopping representatives of interest groups from meeting with politicians would get into some trickier questions.
The "shopping" issue is a bit difficult, since it seems clear that constituents should be able to at least propose legislative ideas to their representatives. Enforcing transparency on authorship might be the best we could really hope for there.
A group of school superintendents or small-town mayors asking the Senator from their State to propose some sort of education reform into Congress is perfectly fine and an example of how "influencing politicians" should be. Letting some think tank funded by Big Banks draft an entire piece of legislation amending the regulations overseeing the financial institution industry, then looking around until they can find someone willing introduce the measure into consideration for a sizeable donation to the reelection campaign is an example of how "influencing politicians" should *not* be.
Novartis is now saying that even though Cohen "couldn't deliver" what they were looking for, they went through with paying him a million dollars anyway. This is the worst explanation I have ever heard. If anyone is keeping count here, the amount of money funneled into the President's lawyer's shell company that is the one that facilitated the payment to Stormy Daniels now stands at over 2 million dollars, and involves Russian billionaires, healthcare companies, and a telecommunications giant who just so happens to be in the process of a mega-merger.
Most people and companies who spend a million dollars with nothing to show for it have lawyers whose job it is to try and recover as much of that money as possible.
Most people and companies who spend a million dollars with nothing to show for it have lawyers whose job it is to try and recover as much of that money as possible.
Two major American corporations would have us believe they are just handing out millions of dollars like candy at 4th of July parade for no reason whatsoever to a fake LLC we KNOW was used for hush money payments for the President. Again, if this is Hillary or Obama, we are already ordering the lunchtime catering for impeachment hearings. Campaign donations are one thing, straight-up back-door bribes are another.
Impeachment would necessitate Trump knowing about the financial goings-on at Cohen's LLC, which may be difficult to prove. Avenatti must have been able to gain access to *all* of the ledgers for that particular shell corporation Cohen had set up (as far as I know there were several, but only this one is the one under the spotlight).
Does it even matter if this impacts Trump? The important thing is finding out if anyone broke any laws or did something unethical relating to the public interest. Not every scandal has to be about Trump or impeachment.
One question remains paramount: if these were indeed "consulting" fees for Cohen, why in the world were they paid to a shadowy shell LLC that CLEARLY no one was ever supposed to find out about instead of Cohen directly?? And I suppose you could maybe argue this isn't about Trump, but not when this is the same LLC that paid the hush money.
One question remains paramount: if these were indeed "consulting" fees for Cohen, why in the world were they paid to a shadowy shell LLC that CLEARLY no one was ever supposed to find out about instead of Cohen directly?? And I suppose you could maybe argue this isn't about Trump, but not when this is the same LLC that paid the hush money.
If the LLC was supposed to be super-secret, why have the bagman sign the articles of incorporation? Either they are the dumbest crooks ever or they aren’t really trying to hide anything.
One question remains paramount: if these were indeed "consulting" fees for Cohen, why in the world were they paid to a shadowy shell LLC that CLEARLY no one was ever supposed to find out about instead of Cohen directly?? And I suppose you could maybe argue this isn't about Trump, but not when this is the same LLC that paid the hush money.
If the LLC was supposed to be super-secret, why have the bagman sign the articles of incorporation? Either they are the dumbest crooks ever or they aren’t really trying to hide anything.
People need to start looking at the Trump orbit as a really stupid mafia family. The Dum-Dum Corleones if you will. In this scenario, Michael Cohen is Tom Hagen. But yes, I'm almost certain they are in fact this dumb, brazen, or both.
Novartis is now saying that even though Cohen "couldn't deliver" what they were looking for, they went through with paying him a million dollars anyway. This is the worst explanation I have ever heard. If anyone is keeping count here, the amount of money funneled into the President's lawyer's shell company that is the one that facilitated the payment to Stormy Daniels now stands at over 2 million dollars, and involves Russian billionaires, healthcare companies, and a telecommunications giant who just so happens to be in the process of a mega-merger.
Comments
I'm sure there would be unpleasant side effects and maybe it wouldn't be the best idea if you factored in those side effects, but it would definitely root out a lot of corruption if it became common.
That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree but the constitution would have to be majorly changed to make that a reality. There would have to be a transparent process to make sure that every person in the FBI was totally unbiased from the lowest agent all the way to the top. How in the Hell would that be possible?
I hope Manchin loses. Then West Virginia will have 6 years of some doubtless terrible Republican but at least they'll maybe get a chance at "clean" Democrat next election.
Goddamn @jjstraka34 and @smeagolheart there is a middle ground but nobody seems able to see it anymore. Trump is a symptom of this disease, not the disease itself. I won't vote for Trump next time unless the Dems fuck up yet again with their candidate. I'm not interested in hearing what a worthless human being I am for being conservative and won't vote for a candidate who tells me I need to feel guilty for things I personally had nothing to do with. A Democrat with a positive message and a plan? That I might be able to get on board with...
Edit: I'm probably not a good cross-section of the average conservative, I'll admit. I voted for Granholm for governer here in Michigan both times (because the Republicans she ran against were assholes imho) and voted for John Dingell for US Congress in all but the last few elections (I stopped supporting him because of Obamacare and refuse to support his wife because she's running solely on his name recognition).
Edit: Some of the sting could be taken out by making it a 'before tax' deduction.
Money in politics is the biggest problem.
Lobbyists, corporate "speech" which allows unlimited donations, it's all the problem. Your concerns doesn't mean anything when the politicians are only responsive to corporate interests. They don't care about you they want money.
On the Dem side, we have Justice Democrats which I hope gains traction. Paula Swearingin went down tonight against Joe Freakin' Manchin. But Beto O'Rouke might pull it off in Texas. JD are democrats that don't take in corporate PAC and super PAC money. Identity politics aren't the focus, but things like Medicare for All are. They are supposed to represent "just us".
Republicans need something similar - a movement to move beyond the corruption of money in politics. Y'alls politicians at this point are hopelessly corrupt and in the bag to corporate masters. Their biggest concerns are tax cuts for the rich and cutting obamacare to give rich people more money. That's all the Republican majority has been trying to do - aside from identity politics stuff like attack immigrants. Republicans had something - the Freedom Caucus - that was sold as something that would be responsive to we the people but they are in fact now a just a really really corrupt arm of the Koch brothers out to cut taxes on businesses, prevent anything that might affect corporate profits and they aren't even pretending to be anything but that.
--------
Wolf Pac is a non-partisan movement to "restore balance and integrity to our elections. We demand a government that is accountable to the People. Join the fight for Free & Fair Elections."
It's all about taking money out of politics.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
I am glad to see that others want deep-pocketed money out of politics. I have been advocating for the abolition of *all* lobbying of politicians for almost a decade now, in addition to making it illegal for ex-politicians to become "consultants" to various corporations, private equity firms, etc. Too many of those interests use their new consultants to garner more political contacts whom they can squeeze to skew things in their favor.
Why should your Representative listen to you, an individual citizen who might have donated $100 or less to their campaign, when they can listen to Bob the Corporate Lobbyist who just handed the campaign a $10,000 check? Yes, it has always been the case that money influences politics but we are now in the time when essentially-unlimited dark money can *buy* politicians at wholesale prices.
The old-fashioned "call or e-mail your Member of Congress" isn't really "lobbying" (technically it is, but not in the sense I am using the term) because it doesn't contain a monetary bribe. Besides, do you think Members of Congress actually listen to phone calls or read e-mail messages from constituents? *pfft* Of course they don't--that would be the staff's job.
The "shopping" issue is a bit difficult, since it seems clear that constituents should be able to at least propose legislative ideas to their representatives. Enforcing transparency on authorship might be the best we could really hope for there.
Two major American corporations would have us believe they are just handing out millions of dollars like candy at 4th of July parade for no reason whatsoever to a fake LLC we KNOW was used for hush money payments for the President. Again, if this is Hillary or Obama, we are already ordering the lunchtime catering for impeachment hearings. Campaign donations are one thing, straight-up back-door bribes are another.
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Essential_Consultants_01_12_17.pdf
Sarcastically only might be true.
Kickbacks judge to Novartis: Hand over the info on those 79,000 'sham' events
UPDATED: Novartis says it got nothing from a $1.2M consulting deal with Trump's lawyer
After